Pavel Vozenilek wrote:
"Martin Wille" wrote:
So if we add the suggested super string then PLEASE do not name it 'string', but 'string_builder' or 'string_buffer' in order to emphasize on the in-place modification aspect in the name. Of course, there should be a complement to string_builder: immutable_string. (ISTR there was a proposal for that, already).
One posibility is to use Boost.Const String (should be sitting somewhere in review queue) so that:
super_string<char, std::basic_string<char> >
would provide mutable interface and
super_string<char, boost::const_string<char> >
would be limited to immutable operations. The const_string variant may also avoid the basic_string overhead.
Frankly, I don't see the benefit of that. std::string and const_string are already working string implementations. Why add a wrapper around them? The suggested wrappers still have different types and even different interfaces. The latter would certainly be confusing. A wrapping approach would make sense if (raw) buffers could be wrapped: E.g. super_string< vector<char> >, or super_string< boost::array<...> > or super_string< char[N] > or even super_string< view<...> > super_string< char[N] > would have the advantage that it can operate entirely on the stack which helps reduce the dynamic allocations (which is the purpose of a string buffer). Regards, m Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com